Skip to main content

Unsuccessful Candidate Is Estopped From Challenging Selection Process After Taking Part In It

In D. SAROJAKUMARI Vs R. HELEN THILAKOM & ORS., the Supreme Court has held that once a person took part in the process of selection and was not found fit for appointment, the said person was estopped from challenging the process of selection. This was in a contest between two Music Teachers claiming appointment in a school under the management of Church of South India. There were two schools under the management- Samuel LMS High School, and Light of the Blind School, which was meant for visually challenged students.

One Helen Thilakom was working as a part-time music teacher in the Light of the Blind School. Selection process for direct recruitment for full-time music teacher in Samuel School was notified. Helen participated in the selection process. But she was rejected, and one Saroja kumari got selected. Thereupon, Helen challenged the selection process contending that the vacancy in Samuel School could not have been filled up by direct recruitment. She contended that she was entitled for promotion to the post, reckoning her service in Light of Blind School.

The Departmental Authorities did not accept the challenge of Helen, on ground that both the schools could not be treated as falling under one unit, as Light of Blind School was a special school catering to the needs of visually challenged. So, it was pointed out that there could not be any common seniority list for both schools, though they were under same management.

However, the High Court accepted the challenge of Helen, and held that she was entitled to promotion, treating both schools as falling under same unit. Sarojakumari had resisted the challenge stating that Helen was estopped from contending that no direct recruitment could be held, after having taken part in the selection process. But the said contention was rejected, and Sarojakumari was shown the door by HC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more